INDER SINGH ANUP SINGH Vs. HARBANS SINGH ANUP SINGH
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
INDER SINGH ANUP SINGH
HARBANS SINGH ANUP SINGH
Click here to view full judgement.
Harnam Singh, J. -
(1.) In Civil Revn. No. 12 of 1954 it is said that to sustain an action for malicious prosecution there must have been a 'prosecution for an offence by the defendant of a plaintiff without reasonable and probable cause.
(2.) In -- 'Kandasami Asari v. Subramania Pillai', 13 Mad LJ 370 (A), Benson and Bhashyam Aiyangar JJ. were of the opinion that a suit for malicious prosecution can be brought only when there has been a 'prosecution for an offence' and as proceedings under Section 107 of the Code do not involve any such prosecution, they cannot afford a cause of action for a suit for malicious prosecution.
(3.) Plainly, Section 107 of the Code is preventive and not punitive. Section 117(2) of the Code provides 'inter alia' that where the order made under Section 112 of the Code requires security for keeping the peace, enquiry shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable, in the manner prescribed by the Code for conducting trials and recording evidence in summons cases. That being the position of matters, it is plain that proceedings under Section 107 of the Code are of a quasi criminal nature.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.